Final Caroline Martin Mitchell Workshop Held June 19th

Concluding a year and a half long process originally driven by District 203, a final Mitchell property workshop was held June 19th. Numerous individuals representing several groups turned out, almost all in opposition to a Park District idea to eliminate 360 garden plots. Read the many reasons the WSGPC thinks displacing the Community Garden Plots is a poor idea in the full story.

Ms. Amy Emery, AICP

that will cater to the growing demands of athletic users, without sacrificing the needs of gardeners and unduly impacting adjacent land uses. Efforts should continue to solicit public input on modifications to this property prior to seeking any formal

:

approval for changes through the Naperville City Council."

Although the paragraph is clearly written in a way that urges caution and allows for additional discussion, the premise of the discussion, that the Garden Plots could "cater to the growing demands of athletic users without sacrificing the needs of gardeners", is flawed. If the plan presented at the February workshop, and reported in the June 5^th edition of the Naperville Sun, caters to athletic users by displacing 358 of the existing 525 garden plots, then clearly the needs of a great many gardeners will risk being sacrificed. Some specific objections we have to replacing the existing garden plots with ball fields include but are not limited to the following:

• The Community Garden Plots at its current site is a successful program with a thirty year history making an important link to Naperville's past by continuing the agricultural tradition left by farmers who previously cultivated the land at that location. In a sense, like Naper Settlement, it is a living museum.
• The statement that participation in the garden plot program has declined is misleading. Over 100 garden plots that were offered a decade ago no longer are available, so even with the plots more than 90% rented in 2007, fewer plots may be rented then at one point even while participation remains very high. Furthermore, reasons for reducing available plots have varied and do not necessarily reflect decreasing demand. For example, a May 17, 2001 Park District fax from Ms. Katie Sepe indicates the need to eliminate 10 of the north garden plots because the 4^th of July fireworks detonation location was altered to allow for the increased safety of Ribfest attendees when the main stage was moved. "The detonation location was moved southwest, occupying 10 plots that tend to be less desirable due to the proximity of the roadway," according to Ms. Sepe. An additional 20 plots were lost during the winter of 2004-05 when new pipes were installed to increase the water pressure and decrease the distance gardeners must walk to retrieve water.
• The meeting that took place at Sportsman's Community Clubhouse in October 2004 concerning the garden plots was officially deemed a meeting of the "Garden Plot Affairs Committee". Conducted by the Park District, the meeting not only announced the many improvements to the program for 2005, but also revealed the results of a survey given to gardeners regarding what improvements should be made. In addition to the already mentioned concern for water spigots and pressure, gardeners listed their desire for organic plots and concerns regarding theft, non-weeded plots and dumping. None of the survey comments in any way suggested that the program was an inappropriate use of the land, and for 2008 the park district indeed has offered plots for organic gardening which appear to have been in demand.
• The 20 plots eliminated before the 2005 season were determined to be "too wet, too dry and/or too rocky" to be used successfully. It is usually plots located on the periphery that become less desirable as runoff from the roadway deposits gravel and can make the soil too wet to garden successfully. If athletic fields are built in close proximity to the remaining plots, so many questions need to be raised. The plots will be much, much smaller, making the number of peripheral plots far larger as a percentage of available plots, thereby creating many new plots that are "too rocky, too wet, or too dry" and further reducing usage. The ball fields will likely be heavily watered and the storm water runoff may negatively affect the remaining plots. Combined with plots already lost and the program would likely be a shadow of what it once was.
• Theft has always been a concern, with stories of vanishing giant pumpkins in the paper annually. Theft also occurs from the "Plant a Row for the Hungry" collection booth, built by the WSGPC and used to collect extra produce for donation to Loaves and Fishes Pantry as well as the Martin Avenue Senior Apartments. Luckily, many gardeners go years without theft, but reducing the size of the plots would greatly increase the probability that your individual plot would be targeted.
• The number of users of the athletic fields would make policing the plots nearly impossible, and likely generate a substantial increase in vandalism, not just by the athletes, but in turn by those who know that area can no longer be reserved just for permitted gardeners.
• The area to the west of the south garden plots, said to be the perspective location of 100 new plots, was deemed to be a federally designated wetland by Christopher Burke Engineering in a 1999 study conducted by the park district. This means the land can not be used for garden plots, or any other use, without going through the process of creating additional wetlands as specified by federal law.
• The land at DuPage River Park may not be adequate for use as garden plots. Not only would the relatively small size (compared to the current garden plots) make the area susceptible to the many problems already mentioned, but the land would have to be substantially improved in the various ways the current plots have been over the years.
• Athletic fields would be better placed at the DuPage River Park land or at Nike Park where the park district recently acquired 8 acres of land. Both locations are relatively open, whereas the garden plots are adjacent to a residential area where there is opposition to the noise ball fields produce and lighting they would likely need. Displacing the garden plots would be controversial, when ball fields could be built elsewhere with little or no controversy.
• Users of the garden plots are content with having the current user groups of the Caroline Martin Mitchell land as their neighbors. Adding new user groups risks disturbing this balance and could destroy the rural charm and character of the area, which make it so unique in the first place.
• The athletic fields would be too far from Central High School to be used by students during the school day. Installation of artificial turf at Central's stadium will ease the school's space concerns.
• With the ever growing price of food and fuel, coupled with increased concern for our environment generally, programs such as the Community Garden Plots not only need to remain, but should grow through increased promotion of their many benefits.

I hope you will consider the above ideas and incorporate them in the final Caroline Martin Mitchell Report.

Sincerely,

George Bennett

President, WSGPC